Navigating the Relational Dynamics of Carbon-Smart Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI) Projects

Abstract

Urban green infrastructure (UGI) projects rely on collaboration and involve a diverse team of professionals, including constructors, designers, green builders, and maintenance staff. This socially oriented case study focuses on the relational dynamics among UGI professionals, their roles in landscape construction processes, and how these relationships can influence the project’s success and its capacity to implement carbon-smart solutions. “Carbon-smart solutions” refers here to practices aimed at maximising carbon sequestration and storage while minimising carbon emissions. Data for this study were collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews and analysed using deductive qualitative analysis. A coding framework, investigator triangulation, and a representative sample of various professionals were employed to confirm the data’s validity. This study identified several relational factors that either challenge or drive the project’s success and carbon smartness. At the interpersonal level, the determinant drivers and challengers in UGI professionals’ relations were linked to the definition of working roles, power dynamics, the building of mutual trust through open communication, and the possession of the necessary sustainability skills. At the institutional level, relations concerning the shared principles and rationales of the project, as well as the project design process and diverse working cultures, presented both constraints and advances in project success and carbon-smart solutions.

1. Introduction

The imperative to address climate change has propelled urban environments to the forefront of global carbon-smart efforts. As hubs of economic activity and population density, cities are responsible for over 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions, making them critical sites for mitigation and adaptation strategies [1]. In this context, urban green infrastructure (UGI), encompassing the integrated network of vegetation and soil systems within the urban fabric, emerges as a vital, nature-based solution for climate change mitigation. Through the biological process of carbon dioxide sequestration and storage, UGI offers a tangible pathway to reduce atmospheric carbon concentrations. Beyond carbon capture, UGI contributes to a suite of co-benefits, enhancing urban liveability, resilience, and overall sustainability. Given its scalability and multifaceted impact, investing in UGI represents a strategic imperative for cities seeking to navigate the complex challenges of a changing climate [2,3].

However, the capacity of UGI for carbon sequestration is influenced by a range of ecological, structural, and management factors, necessitating a comprehensive understanding of these elements to optimise its potential [4,5]. Vegetation characteristics, such as species composition, growth rate, and biomass accumulation, are primary determinants of carbon uptake. Urban trees, depending on their species, exhibit varying capacities for carbon sequestration [6]. Trees, particularly those with extensive root systems and long lifespans, are significant contributors to carbon storage, while smaller vegetation types provide supplementary but important roles [7,8]. Soil properties further mediate carbon storage potential, with factors like organic matter content, texture, and microbial activity playing critical roles in determining the amount of carbon stored in soils [9].

The spatial layout of UGI, such as the strategic placement of parks and green spaces, enhances its overall carbon sequestration potential [10]. Larger, well-connected green spaces typically offer higher carbon storage potential than fragmented or isolated patches, as connectivity enhances ecological interactions and processes, leading to improved carbon capture and storage [11]. Spatial configuration also influences the efficiency of UGI in capturing and storing carbon, as complex urban landscapes have been found to exhibit better carbon capture capabilities compared with simpler ones [12,13]. Increasing the novel coverage of UGI, rather than solely improving the quality of existing green spaces, has been shown to enhance carbon emission reduction [13]. The type of vegetation and its maintenance play a crucial role. Diverse planting and good growing conditions, supported by appropriate maintenance, can enhance carbon sequestration [14]. In addition, maintenance should particularly concentrate on the practices that foster the carbon storage gained in biomass over time and the practices that decrease tree mortality. While UGI offers substantial benefits regarding carbon sequestration and storage, challenges remain in optimising these systems for maximum efficiency. Factors such as urban planning policies, practical construction techniques, the maintenance of green spaces, and public awareness play crucial roles in the successful implementation of carbon-smart UGI. Additionally, the balance between urban development and green space preservation is critical to maintaining the benefits of carbon sequestration and storage provided by these infrastructures [15].

The present study has selected “carbon-smart” as the operating concept. The concept is not yet firmly established in the scientific literature and both “carbon-smart” and “carbon-wise” are used to describe low-carbon solutions, practices, or outcomes. “Carbon-smart” is increasingly used in contexts such as agriculture [16], human well-being in urban green infrastructure [17], and the design of urban vegetation [7]. In the context of urban green infrastructure, carbon smartness refers to an integrated approach to planning, construction, and management that enhances carbon sequestration and reduces greenhouse gas emissions across the lifecycle of green infrastructure [18]. In alignment with this, the interviews with UGI professionals in this case study also revealed that they implement this concept in their everyday discourse, meaning that they apply a strategic and systems-oriented approach to reducing carbon emissions through planning, sustainable practices, and resource-efficient choices in their professional work. The concept encompasses technological solutions, measured carbon flux, behavioural changes, cultural shifts, and systemic reforms to foster a low-carbon and climate-resilient future.

1.1. Collaborative Nature of UGI Projects

Urban green infrastructure (UGI) involves the integration of preserved green areas from the existing environment and newly constructed elements, such as green spaces within housing developments, parks, green roofs, and vegetated walls. As more and more of cities are built, UGI projects require interdisciplinary collaboration among stakeholders, including decision makers, planners, engineers, and practitioners. Housing developments include UGI in the form of semi-private green space for residents that stresses children’s play, recreation, and parking. The implementation of UGI is inherently linked to housing development processes and broader construction frameworks, which are governed by zoning regulations, land use agreements, building codes, and client-specific objectives [19,20,21,22].

In the project initiation stage, developers establish a project team and define schedules and milestones for preparatory phases. The design phase is critical, as it determines the project’s technical and environmental parameters. Landscape designers and architects, working alongside civil, structural, and geotechnical engineers, assess which UGI components will be preserved and what new features can be feasibly introduced. The integration of UGI elements into broader design processes requires alignment with municipal planning requirements, project goals, and industry standards [22]. Decision making during this phase must also account for the technical challenges of site preparation, material logistics, and infrastructure integration.

The construction phase involves multidisciplinary teams of contractors responsible for executing the approved designs. While the landscape construction typically occurs in the later stages of a housing project, earlier engineering decisions, such as utility placement and earthworks, can significantly impact the conditions for vegetation establishment. These factors directly influence the functional and ecological performance of UGI, including its carbon sequestration capacity [23,24]. Post-construction, a structured handover process is essential to effective project closure. Landscape contractors typically oversee a two-year warranty period, during which the establishment and functionality of yard greenings are monitored. After this period, maintenance responsibilities transition to property management entities or homeowners’ associations to ensure the long-term performance of the implemented UGI.

Landscaping within a housing project is, by its nature, a collaborative effort that provides UGI. They transcend traditional construction and design paradigms, demanding the harmonious orchestration of diverse professional expertise. The success of a UGI project depends on effective project management practices and the collaboration and collective goals of various stakeholders and professionals contributing to the project [25].

1.2. The Research Questions and the Scope of the Research

The focal point of this investigation lies in the examination of the relational dynamics among construction project professionals whose professional decisions may influence the carbon sequestration and storage potential of the yard being constructed. This study examines the comprehensive nature of building projects, as several decisions are made outside of landscaping. The study explores the factors that either facilitate or impede the integration of carbon-smart solutions. The term “carbon-smart solutions” refers to practices designed to maximise carbon sequestration and storage, in addition to reducing carbon emissions. The objective of this study is to elucidate the professional interactions to develop collaborative implications that foster the widespread adoption of carbon-smart UGI initiatives. To achieve this, this study seeks to answer the following research questions:

• What relational factors shape the interactions among professionals in the process of landscape construction of housing projects?
• How does the promotion of carbon smartness figure in these relations?
• Are there any particular bottlenecks in advancing carbon smartness through collaboration among professionals in the process of landscape construction of housing projects?

2. Materials and Methods

The methodology of this case study is based on the theoretical framework of relational contract theory [26,27,28], focusing on its social and organisational aspects [29,30,31]. Relational contract theory explores the role of social interactions, relationships, and context and how these factors affect interpretation, enforcement, and performance beyond the written terms. It aims to investigate how contracting parties rely on relational and informal elements like trust, collaboration, and information sharing to fulfil their commitments, particularly in long-term or complex projects where not all incidents can be anticipated [32].

To effectively enhance the analysis, network governance theory [33,34] serves as a complementary social science framework to relational contract theory. This theory examines how complex policy issues—such as urban green infrastructure (UGI) development—are addressed through interdependent relationships among various actors, including public, private, and civil society, rather than through hierarchical control. It emphasizes collaboration, trust, and shared objectives, aligning seamlessly with relational contract theory. UGI projects involve multiple stakeholders, including municipalities, developers, landowners, community groups, and environmental NGOs. Network governance explains how these diverse actors collaborate, form connections, and coordinate actions—often outside formal contracts—particularly in the context of public policy and complex decision-making processes. The theory highlights the importance of interaction, interdependencies, and shared frames among stakeholders in network governance.

The research context in this study is the relations of the professionals involved in landscape construction, specifically yard construction, in housing projects that aim to create semi-public green space and contribute to UGI. A residential yard is a semi-public green space providing outdoor areas accessible to residents but not fully open to the general public. In Finland, housing companies are legal entities responsible for owning and managing residential buildings and their yards. Apartment ownership is structured through shareholding, which grants residents exclusive rights to their units while requiring collective decision making on property management, including the yard. The yard is generally constructed concurrently with the building as part of the overall development process, or decisions on its renovation must be made at general meetings.

2.1. Research Participants and Semi-Structured Interviews

The participants of this study represent the professionals involved in yard construction in housing projects from municipalities, construction companies, and material suppliers in two construction projects. The data consist of 16 semi-structured interviews. The interviewees were experienced professionals with approximately twenty (20) years of work experience in the field. The average age of the respondents was forty-eight (48) years. The most frequent degree was a Bachelor of Building Construction, and second place was a Bachelor of Horticulture.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted via online meetings, each lasting up to sixty (60) minutes. The interviews’ main themes were chosen to explain how the conditions of yard-scale UGI gradually build up during the construction project and who and what actors affect the realisation of carbon-smart solutions. The themes aimed at a holistic understanding were (1) the construction process and associated activities concerning UGI and landscaping, (2) project-related collaboration and the factors contributing to a successful process, and (3) an understanding of carbon smartness. The interviews were transcribed word by word and analysed in Atlas.ti qualitative data analysis software.

2.2. Deductive Qualitative Analysis

The data analysis was based on deductive qualitative analysis [35,36], which allows researchers to use existing theories to examine the meanings, processes, and narratives of interpersonal and intrapersonal phenomena. The deductive qualitative analysis was completed by combining deductive and inductive analyses to examine elements that refine and extend the theory to reveal phenomena in the current data [37].

The data analysis was divided into two phases: (1) early analysis focusing on familiarity with the data and (2) theory-based code generation and principal analysis focusing on developing a deep understanding of evidence related to the guiding theory. The coding list was generated on the pioneering principles of relational contract theory [26,27,28], a comprehensive literature review, and expert discussions. The literature review concentrated on relational contract theory’s contemporary applications as a framework for analysing relationship-based factors in complex development projects [38,39,40]. Hence, the codes were pre-determined but also reviewed, adapted, and nuanced with a data-driven approach during the initial iterations of analysis.

2.3. Coding Framework and Unit of Analysis

The iteratively revised coding framework included five (5) code groups presenting the themes of (1) relational contract norms, (2) communication and collaboration, (3) goals and carbon smartness alignment, (4) challenges and barriers in carbon-smart landscape construction, and (5) stakeholder roles and responsibilities. The coding groups were divided into twenty-five (25) sub-codes. The pattern aimed to provide a starting point for understanding which relational factors shape the interactions among professionals in landscape construction at the yard scale and how carbon-smart solutions are aligned during the process.

This study’s unit of analysis was defined as a thematic episode, which refers to segments of an interview organised around a distinct theme or topic. These segments could consist of an individual expression, a complete speaking turn, or an accumulation of multiple turns. Each thematic episode has the potential to encompass one or several narratives. The codes’ co-occurrence was also analysed to identify patterns, relationships, or themes within the data. This provided deeper insights into how different phenomena are interconnected and contributed to a more nuanced understanding of the study’s findings.

2.4. Data Saturation and Investigator Triangulation

After analysing five (5) out of sixteen (16) interviews that represented all UGI and landscape construction stakeholders, municipalities, companies, and material suppliers, it became evident that data saturation [41] had been reached. Similar themes and ideas consistently emerged across the interviews, with no new perspectives or insights surfacing. Participant responses began to mirror each other, indicating a need for additional diversity in the insights being collected. The data analysed were sufficiently detailed, with multiple examples illustrating and supporting each revealed theme. In total, there were 586 thematic episodes identified across the five (5) interviews conducted. To strengthen the triangularity, the researchers organised conversations among researchers to resolve any discrepancies in understanding. Finally, the key excerpts were chosen to provide evidence for interpretations and illustrate findings with contextualised examples.

Table 1. The phases of data analysis.

Phases	Actions
Interviewing (data gathering)	The actual process of conducting the interviews, recording them, and ensuring the quality of the raw input. (Data saturation was reached after interviewing 5 informants out of 12.)
Data preparation	Transcription of interviews from audio recordings into text, organisation of field notes, importing of textual data into analysis software (ATLAS.ti), and anonymisation of data.
Initial deductive and coding phase	The phase began with a deductive approach, where a preliminary set of codes was developed based on the study’s theoretical framework (relational contract theory and network governance theory). As the first iterations of coding commenced, these theory-driven codes were applied to the data. Simultaneously, an inductive, data-driven approach was employed. This allowed for the adjustment and refinement of the initial codebook, adding new codes and modifying existing ones to capture the richness and specificity of the empirical data.
Coding deepening and categorising phase	Related codes (both theory-driven and data-driven) were systematically grouped into broader categories. Examination of relationships among codes, identification of their properties and dimensions, and development of sub-categories.
Interpretation phase	Identification of overarching core themes that integrated the established categories and explained the most significant patterns in the data. Transition from detailed categorisation to broader interpretation, constructing a coherent narrative.
Validation and verification phase	Implementation of strategies to enhance the credibility, transferability, and confirmability of the findings. Techniques of analyst triangulation and peer debriefing were implemented.

introduces the phases of data analysis in chronological order.

3. Results

The Results Section provides a comprehensive analysis of the findings derived from the qualitative interview data. These findings shed light on the relational factors influencing interactions among professionals in housing projects that involve landscape construction. In addition, the analysis explores the theme of carbon smartness within these professional interactions and identifies specific bottlenecks hindering the advancement of carbon-smart initiatives.

3.1. Navigating Roles, Power Dynamics, and Accountability in Green Building Practices

This study’s findings revealed that professionals demonstrated a high level of awareness regarding their roles and responsibilities across the various phases of the construction process. Despite the complexity of the process, characterised by multiple phases and the involvement of numerous stakeholders, professionals exhibited a clear understanding of their specific contributions and obligations. This suggests that adequate role delineation and communication frameworks enable a cohesive approach to the practices of housing projects. Such awareness is crucial to ensuring that carbon-smart objectives are consistently prioritised throughout the construction projects.

Excerpt 1, “Of course, it’s designers who determine what we actually do here on the site. Then again, it’s basically the landscape constructor or a separate yard contractor (pihaurakoitsija) who does the practical work”.

(Interviewee 02)

However, the study findings indicated variability in implicit power dynamics throughout the construction process. While the workflow was highly regulated, those responsible for each stage of construction encountered instances where they had the discretion to determine how the nuances of tasks should be executed in detail. This flexibility has been accompanied, to some extent, by ambiguities and fuzziness in the power relations among the various actors, guidelines, and recommendations involved.

For example, although designers recommend specific details for the construction, landscape contractors can decide the practices of on-site arrangements, the storage of materials, and construction methods. Further, the landscape contractor impacts the carbon-smart choices related to the support for the growth of preserved vegetation, machine selection, and work process scheduling, affecting transportation needs. This dynamic often requires informal negotiations to clarify working methods, materials, and timing and reach a consensus on implementation strategies. The ongoing communication underscores the interplay between formal instructions and informal everyday practices, revealing the challenges of navigating authority and collaboration in complex professional settings.

Excerpt 2, “After all, it is pretty much on the shoulders of the construction foreman in charge at the construction site, not how it is organised, the construction site.”

(Interviewee 11)

Excerpt 3, “[The landscape contractor] always thinks about how to do this in the easiest or most sensible way. Then they often think about it there, and then they just draw it out so that they can make realistic pictures of it.”

(Interviewee 11)

The findings further highlighted a pronounced need for continuous accountability within the construction process. While accountability was widely recognised as a critical element of the work, it was often described as an aspiration or a shared target rather than a principle of practical solutions. Despite a consensus among professionals on maintaining accountability throughout the process, ambiguity persisted regarding whether this was systematically embedded in practice. This suggests a gap between the ideal of accountability and its practical implementation, compounded by the complexities of navigating power relations and collaborative decision making.

Excerpt 4:, “It is important that everyone works together and that they bring those carbon-smart solutions in their own area of expertise. Whether it is how building engineers optimise structures so that we can reduce the use of materials. I think the same applies to designers. They should also be able to bring us that knowledge.”

(Interviewee 01)

3.2. Building Trust Through Collaboration and Information Sharing

The study findings, framed through the lens of relational contract theory, indicated a strong tendency among professionals to cultivate trust beyond the constraints of formal contracts. This trust building was evident in the ongoing collaboration, manifested in a willingness to share information and an understanding of reciprocal benefits. These practices fostered a cooperative environment, enabling professionals to navigate complex interactions and align their efforts toward common goals.

Excerpt 5, “[–] …so, if we’ve got that gig, then we’ll have a little coffee and chat [with them] and [*laughing*] we’ll go through it in a good spirit.”

(Interviewee 13)

The development of trust was found to be strongly linked to critical factors such as commitment, flexibility, and reciprocity. The interviewees described regular communication and collaboration among professionals, reinforcing trust and facilitating relationship building. Moreover, the ability to engage in collaborative decision making during challenges further strengthened relations, demonstrating the importance of adaptability and mutual support in maintaining productive professional relationships. However, time and financial constraints significantly impact the way professionals collaborate. These limitations often force each professional to focus primarily on their regulated tasks to meet tight deadlines and stay within budget.

3.3. Carbon-Smart Thinking Should Be Prioritised to Make It a Reality

The professionals of housing projects need to prioritise carbon smartness in design and regulation from the very beginning of the project and across all the implementation phases. They realised they could not achieve carbon smartness with their current, traditional practices and technologies. Carbon smartness demands practical innovation. This finding underscores the need for continuous learning in the workplace and the need to develop new methods, technologies, and working procedures for carbon-smart solutions.

Excerpt 6, “Of course, we are in a really demanding transition phase [in terms of carbon smartness], in our industry. We are constantly trying to find [new, carbon-smart] solutions to reduce the carbon footprint. So that it still does not unreasonably affect the construction project or its schedule. The costs cannot be kept at the same level, but the residents still have the opportunity to buy our product. Yes, we have the ongoing conversation.”

(Interviewee 05)

Excerpt 7, “You can of course think about the solutions and reduce the material use as much as possible and so on, but it would also require innovations and actions for reviewing critically [our solutions].”

(Interviewee 05)

Professionals also wished for novel metrics and indicators for carbon-smart work. These measurements would provide tangible evidence that the solutions being implemented are both carbon-smart and financially viable. However, a recognised contradiction exists between the goal of carbon smartness and the goal of maintaining financial affordability. While striving for carbon-smart solutions, builders (constructors) often face the challenge of balancing the higher initial costs of carbon-smart materials and technologies with the need to keep projects financially feasible.

3.4. The Differences Between Working Cultures and a Lack of Skills May Hinder Sustainability

The promotion of sustainability and carbon-smart practices is fraught with significant challenges. One obstacle identified is the need for more alignment stemming from organisational practices, notably variations in workplace culture. This misalignment is closely associated with uncertainties arising from power dynamics and ambiguities in role definitions. The interviewees reflected that the lack of sustainability-related skills and competencies may create a barrier to achieving carbon-smart objectives, even if they were regulated in contracts. This challenge indicates an organisation’s—or its members’—inability to acquire, adapt, or effectively apply the requisite knowledge, skills, or expertise necessary to implement transformative changes to attain carbon-smart goals. The respondents felt that the difficulties were also related to the attitudes of practitioners. Such difficulties were particularly evident in the renewal of organisational practices, which may be hindered by insufficient expertise in emerging domains. It seemed that many green space maintenance professionals had strongly entrenched ways of operating and that authoritative managers were not easily willing to reform their existing practices and modus operandi.

Excerpt 8, “And the other challenge is the attitude, which is that you have the information, but if you don’t somehow believe it and buy it. Then it doesn’t turn into action. And that’s the big challenge. We have the knowledge, we know, based on science, what our big problems and global challenges are. And we even have big lists of what the methods are. But if you can really get it now, it depends to a large extent on your attitude.”

(Interviewee 01)

Excerpt 9, “If I myself even [suggest] a stormwater solution [–] that there should be different layers of soil… [–] …some contractors, so it’s a bit straightforward business, says [to me] that put there just soil, there the plants will grow.”

(Interviewee 13)

Excerpt 10, “Yes, so the general problem is that the landscape construction is not supervised by a green industry professional, but it is an operator from another sector, who does not understand in depth what the quality of the landscape construction or the characteristics are.”

(S11)

In promoting carbon-smart solutions, landscape constructors emphasised the critical need to prioritise carbon smartness in planning, design, and regulation across all construction phases. They recognised that achieving carbon smartness requires practical innovation. This finding underscores the necessity of developing new methods, technologies, and working procedures that need to be incorporated into the construction process. Professionals also wished for novel metrics and indicators for carbon-smart solutions. These measurements would provide tangible evidence that the solutions being implemented are both carbon-smart and financially viable. However, a recognised contradiction exists between the goal of carbon-smart solutions and the goal of maintaining affordability. While striving for carbon-smart solutions, builders often face the challenge of balancing the higher initial costs of sustainable materials and technologies with the need to keep projects financially feasible.

Excerpt 11, “Well, to be honest, the biggest obstacle [to carbon-smart solutions] is money. If the new thing costs more than the other way, it is much harder to get the point across. In that sense, sustainable approaches should also be economically affordable. So that they can be easily adapted [to practical action].”

(Interviewee 01)

Excerpt 12, “And disposable products of this kind. For example, people often bargain for equipment and take the cheapest one. They don’t realise that they know, actually, from the very beginning that it’s going to be rubbish in five years. So, it’s carbon-stupidity.”

(Interviewee 11)

3.5. Relational Drivers and Challengers

The analysis of the results showed that promoting sustainable, carbon-smart solutions in a residential construction project is a highly complex phenomenon, with factors both driving and challenging it. The determinant findings are categorised at both an interpersonal level (Figure 1) and an institutional level (Figure 2). This two-level decomposition of dynamic relations aims to provide a deeper understanding of the complex nature of ties that impact carbon-smart work. The question is not just about individual competence or organisational practices; it is their interplay. The challengers and drivers do not emerge solely from professionals’ interactions but also from interacting institutional principles, processes and working cultures. The categorisation may also help to reflect where problems truly originate and where interventions will be the most effective. Many of the drivers and challengers of carbon-smart solutions at the interpersonal level were related to themes of UGI professionals’ working roles, power dynamics, and professional accountability. There were also notable findings in themes related to professionals’ experiences in building trust through open communication, collaboration, and information sharing, as well as their sustainability competencies.

When observing the institutional relations, the core logic and rationales of the collective construction project appear to be a dominant question: is it, in principle, a profit-driven or sustainability-driven undertaking? This question addresses resource allocation, as well as other emerging themes, including sharing the project design process and planning project lifecycle management. In alignment with this, the disparities in organisational working cultures may present several barriers to implementing carbon-smart solutions in a shared construction project, such as established methods, resistance to change, poor communication, and restricted information flow.

3.6. Bottlenecks in Reaching Sustainable and Carbon-Smart Solutions

In addition to drivers and challengers, the goal of our research was to identify special bottlenecks in landscape professionals’ relations in construction projects from the perspective of carbon-smart UGI. In collaborative development and project work, a “bottleneck” refers to a point in the process where the flow of work is significantly slowed or halted, restricting the project’s overall progress [42,43].

To prioritise sustainability, carbon-smart objectives should be established in construction projects’ planning and development phases and incorporated into goals, budgets, and scheduling. In this challenge, municipalities and developers could consult landscape architects and designers at an early stage. In the designing phase, the process needs professionals with specific competencies in carbon-smart approaches who can define sustainable and site-tailored solutions. There should be more intensive collaboration and relationship building between the design and construction phases, conducting contract negotiations with carbon-smart criteria and detailed plans on site. The meetings in the construction phase must address explicit low-carbon or carbon neutrality goals and ensure a schedule, material supply, and metrics conducive to implementing carbon-smart landscape practices.

Finally, the transfer from construction to the maintenance phase should be defined and negotiated more precisely. There is a recognised need to transfer knowledge from landscapers to maintenance companies to foster optimal plant growth and maximise carbon sequestration and ecological benefits after on-site construction.

4. Discussion

This study illuminates the intricate interplay of relational dynamics and practical challenges in advancing sustainable, carbon-smart UGI. We found that prioritizing carbon-sensitive thinking, fostering open communication, building trust, promoting collaboration, and clearly defining roles are pivotal drivers of project success. Conversely, cultural differences, resistance to change, financial constraints, and communication breakdowns significantly challenge progress. Furthermore, the identification of bottlenecks across project phases underscores the necessity of embedding carbon-smart objectives throughout the entire lifecycle of a construction site, from initial design to long-term maintenance.

These research findings illuminate the complexity of achieving sustainability goals in green construction and highlight areas requiring strategic intervention. The results align with prior research, emphasizing the importance of collaboration, trust, and clear role definitions in driving sustainability in the workplace. However, a key divergence is observed: contrary to earlier studies [44], this research study did not find a significant influence of employees’ personal values and motivational factors on interactional relationships within the projects. This discrepancy could stem from contextual factors, such as organizational structures or external pressures unique to the green building sector, warranting further investigation.

This study emphasizes that achieving carbon-smart UGI projects is fundamentally a relational endeavour. Beyond individual accountability, success hinges on professionals’ acute awareness of their own responsibilities and those of their collaborators. This fosters mutual support, smoother transitions, and cohesive action across all project phases. Success, therefore, extends beyond technical execution, demanding a culture of cooperation built on strong relationships. Attitudes, interpersonal skills, and technical competencies must align to overcome challenges and leverage relational drivers. Open communication, trust, and mutual respect are foundational to this cooperative spirit, enabling teams to navigate the complexities of sustainability initiatives effectively.

Ultimately, achieving carbon-smart UGI is not merely a technical pursuit but a relational one, demanding both systemic alignment and individual accountability. Addressing the identified challenges and bottlenecks paves the way for the greater adoption of carbon-smart practices when implementing UGI in housing projects. Based on our findings, we propose the practical implications introduced in

Table 2. Practical implications and recommendations for advancing carbon-smart implementation of UGI in housing projects.

Practical Implications
1. Capacity building for sustainability competencies
Challenge addressed	Resistance to change and potential lack of sustainability competencies and carbon-smart thinking aligned with technical skills among some professionals.
Driver reinforced	Prioritising sustainability competencies and carbon-smart thinking in alignment of technical competencies development.
Action	Continuous on-the-job upskilling programs focusing on competencies of carbon smartness are essential to bridging expertise gaps among professionals from diverse organisations involved in UGI design and construction. Ensure that actors in different implementation phases master the basics of low-carbon construction and the role of vegetation and soil in carbon sequestration and storage. Develop a basic understanding for all actors in different project phases to support the cross-sector development of climate-smart construction site practices. Create opportunities for co-innovation in practice development and critical evaluation of carbon metrics. Promote learning by doing through on-site training and peer learning.
2. Embedding carbon-smart goals and criteria across the project lifecycle
Challenge addressed	Bottlenecks across project phases (where sustainability is often an afterthought) and financial constraints. Carbon-smart landscape construction considers both emissions from methods and materials and carbon sequestration by healthy vegetation, requiring cross-disciplinary collaboration.
Driver reinforced	Clear definition of carbon smartness prioritisation as driving principle of project and its systemic alignment across lifecycle.
Action	Integrate carbon-smart criteria into project budgets, schedules, and contractual obligations from the outset, ensuring that carbon smartness is a core component, not an afterthought. Define clear carbon targets, metrics, and monitoring methods at the project’s outset. Embed carbon-related goals in procurement documents (e.g., tenders, contracts, and schedules), and include climate-smart expertise as a criterion alongside price. Ensure project management and site supervision support climate-smart practices—such as by planning logistics and storage to avoid soil compaction and protecting existing vegetation. Prioritise post-construction maintenance during the warranty period to support plant establishment, healthy growth, and long-term carbon capture.
3. Ensuring effective knowledge transfer and sustained benefits
Challenge Addressed	Bottlenecks especially between construction and maintenance phases, and the risk of ecological benefits not being sustained in the long term due to knowledge gaps.
Driver Reinforced	Mutual support, smoother transitions, and collective accountability across project phases.
Action	Establish clear protocols and ongoing training for maintenance teams, as these are indispensable to sustaining the ecological benefits of urban green infrastructure (UGI). Secure the flow of information between project phases, particularly between construction and maintenance, to ensure continuity in climate-smart practices and successful vegetation outcomes. Systematically collect, store, develop, and share project-specific knowledge, skills, and innovations related to carbon-smart practices. Translate lessons learned across projects into updated internal guidelines within construction companies and contribute to national-level best practices where possible.

, each directly targeting the challenges and reinforcing the drivers identified.

This study identifies profit-driven project priorities and financial constraints as significant challenges to implementing carbon-smart solutions. Private sector actors often prioritise financial viability, but strong relational foundations among stakeholders can help navigate these obstacles. Open communication and trust allow for more transparent discussions regarding project costs and benefits, fostering a collaborative approach that considers long-term environmental and social values alongside immediate expenses. To overcome financial hurdles, innovative funding strategies are essential. Collaborative efforts can unlock blended finance models and public–private partnerships, while incentives like tax breaks for green building can encourage sustainable practices. Trust and clearly defined core logic in projects encourage aligning financial motivations with a genuine commitment to sustainability.

Although urban green elements may seem minor in individual construction projects, they collectively shape the ecological connectivity and ecosystem services of residential areas. Well-designed semi-public green spaces can effectively complement public green networks. Climate-smart UGI contributes to disaster risk reduction through stormwater management and local climate regulation and supports climate mitigation through carbon sequestration, aligning with the Sendai Framework and the Paris Agreement. Moreover, as a multifunctional element of sustainable cities, it contributes to the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals [45].

While this study provides valuable insights into the relational dynamics of carbon-smart landscape construction, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations. The reliance on qualitative methods, while offering depth, inherently introduces the potential for subjectivity. Despite rigorous coding and triangulation efforts, interpretations may vary depending on the perspectives of both participants and researchers. Furthermore, this study’s focus on professional interactions within landscaping in a building project necessarily excluded the perspectives of other vital stakeholders, such as end-users, policymakers, and community representatives. Incorporating these diverse viewpoints could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the broader societal implications of sustainable construction. Additionally, this research study offers a snapshot of relational dynamics at a specific point in time and does not capture the evolution of these relationships throughout the project lifecycle, particularly during the crucial transition from construction to maintenance.

5. Conclusions

In the face of escalating global pressures for sustainable development, the adoption of carbon-smart urban green infrastructure (UGI) represents both a critical imperative and a transformative opportunity. This study has explored the complex relational dynamics that underpin successful UGI implementation, highlighting the drivers for progress and the barriers to it, the challengers. The findings emphasise that while technical innovation is essential, the cultivation of robust collaboration, communication, and shared driving principles among professionals is equally important.

By highlighting these relational factors, this research study contributes to the growing dialogue on achieving carbon-smart outcomes through collaborative and inclusive strategies. The findings of this study offer practical ways to advance UGI practices and address the complex challenges of building a low-carbon future.

Firstly, building upon the exploration of professional interactions in carbon-smart UGI projects, further research should delve into the nuanced role of individual values and motivations. Understanding how personal ethical frameworks, environmental consciousness, and professional aspirations shape collaborative behaviours can illuminate previously obscured drivers of project success or failure. This line of inquiry could employ qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews and ethnographic studies, to uncover the subjective experiences and decision-making processes of professionals involved in UGI initiatives.

Secondly, a significant gap exists in the understanding of the long-term efficacy of knowledge transfer within UGI maintenance. Longitudinal studies tracking maintenance practices over extended periods are crucial to assessing the sustained impact of initial training and knowledge dissemination. Such research would allow us to evaluate how effectively professionals retain and apply carbon-smart maintenance techniques and identify any evolving challenges they encounter. This approach could incorporate repeated site visits, detailed documentation of maintenance activities, and periodic interviews with maintenance personnel. By examining the evolution of maintenance practices over time, we can determine the factors that contribute to the successful integration of sustainable maintenance strategies and identify potential barriers that hinder their long-term implementation. Furthermore, such research could explore the role of adaptive management, allowing for adjustments to maintenance protocols based on real-time feedback and evolving environmental conditions, ensuring the continued effectiveness of UGI in mitigating carbon emissions.

Finally, the crucial role of economic incentives in promoting the adoption of carbon-smart solutions within UGI remains underexplored. Future research should investigate how financial rewards, profit-sharing schemes, and other economic mechanisms can effectively motivate professionals and organisations to prioritise sustainability. Such research could include comparative analyses of different incentive structures, case studies of successful implementation, and surveys to measure the perceived effectiveness of different economic drivers. By understanding how financial motivations intersect with environmental goals, we can develop more targeted and effective strategies to promote sustainable UGI practices.

These proposed avenues of research, focusing on personal values, the longevity of maintenance, and economic incentives, will collectively contribute to a more comprehensive and actionable understanding of the factors that influence the success of green urban infrastructure. By bridging the gap between relational dynamics and practical implementation, we can move closer to a future where carbon-smart UGI is not just an aspiration, but a tangible and enduring reality, shaping the sustainable cities of tomorrow.